DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/15/2025, have been entered into the record. Claims 1-28 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/15/2025, have been carefully considered but are not convincing.
Claim Interpretations Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/15/2025, clarify that the limitations of claim 1 and 11 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and render said limitations definite.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/15/2025, indicate that the examiner’s understanding of claims 25-26 as not invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), despite the recitation of the term “means,” is correct. Thus, said limitations will not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/15/2025, overcome most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set out in the previous office action, excepting the use of the term “person” without an article in claim 24 and the recitation of trademarks/trade names in claim 25. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), with the exception of the rejections noted above and recited again in this office action, have been overcome by applicant’s amendments. However, the applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 15 have introduced new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which have been set out below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11, have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Gillian does not teach,
…the feature of "the sensor is installed on a ceiling, a floor and/or a wall" of Applicant's amended claim 1. This kind of solution is not presented in the Gillian as its radar sensor is arranged to a mobile phone.”
And further suggests that, “there's no rationale motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine Gillian with Amir as Gillian's radar system is designed to be a radar that has to work when the radar is moving.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Gillian teaches,
The radar system 102 can be used as a stand-alone radar system or used with, or embedded within, many different smart devices 104 or peripherals, such as in control panels that control home appliances and systems, in automobiles to control internal functions (e.g., volume, cruise control, or even driving of the car), or as an attachment to a laptop computer to control computing applications on the laptop. (para. 0036)
That is, one embodiment of Gillian is a mobile smartphone, but the invention of Gillian encompasses multiple embodiments, including control panels in home appliances and systems and in the internal control functions of automobiles.
Gillian is silent as to where, specifically, said home appliances, systems, or internal control functions of automobiles are, but it is common knowledge that home appliances and systems can be installed in ceilings, floors, or walls (e.g., a smart thermostat, an alarm system) and that internal control functions of automobiles can be installed in the wall of a vehicle (e.g., within a vehicle console). In fact, an alarm system such as the one taught by Amir can be understood to be one such home appliance/system. Thus, it is reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Gillian in view of Amir to result in the invention of claim 1.
The applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 11 is not persuasive for the same reasons cited above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant has requested to hold the double patenting rejection in abeyance until allowable subject matter is acknowledged. The examiner has approved this request.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 15, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the sensor is configured to deactivate a second operating mode" in p. 2, line 7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no second operating in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. It is therefore unclear how a second operating mode could be deactivated when it has never been claimed to have been activated in the first place. That is, deactivation is understood in the art to first require either existence or activation, neither of which exists for the second operating mode of claim 5.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second operating mode" in p. 4, line 7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because there is no second operating in claim 11, from which claim 15 depends. It is therefore unclear how a second operating mode could be deactivated when it has never been claimed to have been activated in the first place. That is, deactivation is understood in the art to first require either existence or activation, neither of which exists for the second operating mode of claim 15.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "wherein a notification or fall notification is sending an alarm or message to person or an organization monitoring the health of the object" in p. 5, line 23. This limitation is indefinite it appears to define a notification or fall notification without introducing any structure or method by which a fall notification is sent. To remedy this, the examiner recommends adjusting claim 24 such that the sending of a fall notification is positively claimed before reciting what said notification entails. It is further indefinite because it is unclear as to whether “person” without either a definite or indefinite article is introducing a new person or referring back to the same person of claim 1, upon which claim 24 depends.
Claim 25 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth and the trademark/trade name Zigbee. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a radio-based identification means and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 6-9, 11-12, 14-21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0156957 A1) in view of Amir (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0042452 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gillian discloses (note: what Gillian does not teach is struck through),
A sensor for observing the presence, location, movement and/or attitude of a person in a monitored area (para. 0030, “In the environments 100-1 to 100-4 and 100-6, a user performs different types of gestures, which are detected by the radar system 102.”), characterized in that wherein the sensor comprises means for processing the measurement signal of the sensor, such as measuring electronics (fig. 2-1, system processor 216 is part of radar system 102. See also para. 0045, “In this example, the system processor 216 implements the hardware-abstraction module 220 and the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222. The system processor 216 or a memory controller can implement and manage the circular buffer 224”), and means for communicating measurement results and/or data relating to the measurement results for further processing (fig. 2-1, communication interface 210. See also para. 0046, “This enables the radar system 102 to provide the smart device 104 raw data via the communication interface 210 such that the computer processor 202 can process the raw data for the radar-based application 206.”), wherein the sensor is installed (para. 0036, quoted above in the Response to Arguments) (para. 0032, “The radar system 102 can also recognize other types of gestures or motions not shown in FIG. 1. Example types of gestures include a knob-turning gesture in which a user curls their fingers to grip an imaginary doorknob and rotate their fingers and hand in a clockwise or counter-clockwise fashion to mimic an action of turning the imaginary doorknob. Another example type of gesture includes a spindle-twisting gesture, which a user performs by rubbing a thumb and at least one other finger together. The gestures can be two-dimensional, such as those used with touch-sensitive displays (e.g., a two-finger pinch, a two-finger spread, or a tap).” See also para. 0033, “The radar system 102 also detects and tracks multiple users to enable both users to interact with the smart device 104.” The Examiner notes that “detecting and tracking multiple users” includes locating the users), and wherein the sensor comprises means for detecting the orientation of the sensor, such as an acceleration sensor, and the sensor and/or a system, e.g. server, is configured to take the detected orientation of the sensor into account when determining measurement results for the monitored person, e.g. by compensating or taking into account the measurement results based on the detected orientation and/or by communicating the detected orientation (para. 0065, “Using the real-time training procedure, the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222 can be tailored to the user, account for current environmental conditions, and account for a current position or orientation of the smart device 104.” The Examiner notes that the radar system 102 is part of the smart device 104. Per para. 0052, the frame-of-reference machine-learning module is used in updating the radar system’s clutter map or in determining an absolute motion of an object).
Amir teaches
…wherein the sensor is installed on a ceiling, a floor, or a wall (para. 0018, “The motion sensor may be positioned vertically above the active reflective wave sensor when mounted on a wall. Or, the motion sensor may be positioned vertically below the active reflective wave sensor when mounted on a wall”).
Amir and Gillian are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor of Gillian in the fitting of Amir because fitting a smart device in place allows for it to be placed in an ideal place for monitoring vital signs in areas of interest (e.g. on the dashboard of the vehicle in of environment 100-8 of Gillian).
Regarding claim 2, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the sensor according to claim 1. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein the sensor comprises a first operating mode and a second operating mode, wherein in the first operating mode the sensor is configured to track movement of the monitored person, and in the second operating mode the sensor is configured to measure and/or further analyze measurements relating to a part of the measured area in which movement of a person was observed in the first operating mode (para. 0033, “In the environment 100-7, the radar system 102 generates a three-dimensional map of a surrounding environment for contextual awareness. The radar system 102 also detects and tracks multiple users to enable both users to interact with the smart device 104. The radar system 102 can also perform vital-sign detection.” The Examiner notes that detecting and tracking multiple users is the first operating mode and both generating a three-dimensional map and vital-sign detection could be construed as constituting the second operating mode).
Regarding claim 4, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the sensor according to claim 2. Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor is configured to activate the second operating mode based on detecting that the monitored person is not moving, has fallen and/or the speed of the monitored person is slower than a predefined threshold value
Amir teaches,
…wherein the sensor is configured to activate the second operating mode based on detecting that the monitored person is not moving, has fallen and/or the speed of the monitored person is slower than a predefined threshold value (para. 0108, “Thus the process 400 uses a relatively low power consuming activity sensor (e.g. a PIR detector) to determine whether there is activity (e.g. movement) in a monitored space 104 of the environment 100. If no activity is detected for a first predetermined amount of time, then (and only then) the active reflected wave detector 206 is used to determine a status of the environment and/or a person therein.” The Examiner notes that the reference teaches that the activity sensor can be a radar based motion detector. See para. 0044).
Amir is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses a radar monitor system for fall detection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Gillian with the activation of a second operating mode of Amir because the activation of the second operating mode of Amir only when no activity is detected for a predetermined amount of time reduces the power consumption of the device without sacrificing measurement accuracy (see Amir, para. 0108).
Regarding claim 5, Gillian discloses a sensor according to claim 1. Gillian does not disclose,
…wherein the sensor is configured to deactivate the second operating mode based on detecting that the monitored person is not determined as fallen, the person is moving and/or the speed of the monitored person is higher than a predefined threshold value.
Amir discloses,
…wherein the sensor is configured to deactivate the second operating mode based on detecting that the monitored person is not determined as fallen, the person is moving and/or the speed of the monitored person is higher than a predefined threshold value (para. 0114, “In response to completion of the step S414 CPU 202 may be configured to deactivate the active reflected wave detector 206 to provide further power savings.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Gillian with the deactivation of a second operating mode of Amir because the deactivation of the second operating mode of Amir only when no activity is detected for a predetermined amount of time reduces the power consumption of the device without sacrificing measurement accuracy (see Amir, para. 0108).
Regarding claim 6, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the sensor according to claim 1. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein in the second operating mode the sensor is configured to analyze the measurement signal in such a way that the phase of the measurement signal is determined in order to observe movement of the object, such as heartbeat and/or breathing (paras. 0116-0117, “The digital beat signal represents complex radar data 246 and includes both magnitude and phase information…At 808, the complex radar data is analyzed using machine learning to detect a change in the radar system's frame of reference. For example, the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222 analyzes the digital beat signals 428-1 to 428-M or the hardware-agnostic complex radar data 502-1 to 502-M to generate the frame-of-reference data 248, which provides information regarding the radar system 102's frame of reference. This information can indicate whether the frame of reference is stationary, whether the frame of reference is moving, and/or characteristics regarding changes to the frame of reference (e.g., distance, direction, velocity). Although described for motion sensing, similar operations can also be performed for other applications, including presence detection, gesture recognition, collision avoidance, vital sign detection, and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 7, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the sensor according to claim 1. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein in the second operating mode the sensor and/or the measuring electronics of the sensor are configured to analyze the measurement signal from the area and/or certain distance around the area relating to the determined azimuth, elevation and/or distance from the sensor of the person determined in the first operating mode (para. 0041, “The one-dimensional shape enables the radar system 102 to measure one angular dimension (e.g., an azimuth or an elevation) while the two-dimensional shape enables the radar system 102 to measure two angular dimensions (e.g., to determine both an azimuth angle and an elevation angle of the object 302)”).
Regarding claim 8, Gillian in view of Amir teaches a sensor according to claim 1. Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor is configured to detect falling and/or sitting of the person by the determined elevation of the person, e.g. such that when the elevation of the person is under certain threshold elevation value, the person can be determined to be fallen.
Amir teaches,
…wherein the sensor is configured to detect falling and/or sitting of the person by the determined elevation of the person, e.g. such that when the elevation of the person is under certain threshold elevation value, the person can be determined to be fallen (para. 0084, “If the height metric (e.g. weighted centre, average height and/or maximum height) is within (less than) the threshold distance, D, from the floor, the CPU 202 may determine that the person in the environment is in a fall position, this is illustrated in FIG. 3b. If the height metric is greater than a first threshold distance from the floor but less than a second threshold distance from the floor for example the a maximum height amongst the measurements associated with body is between 30 cm and 1.3 m, the CPU 202 may be able to detect that the person is in a safe reclined position e.g. lying down on a bed or couch, which is an example of a non-fall position.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Gillian to include the threshold value of Amir. Gillian teaches that the disclosed sensor can be used for vital signs detection and to detect life-threatening emergencies (see para. 0033). Falls are a known life-threatening emergency for elderly users. The threshold value of Amir enables fall detection as well as differentiating between falling and lying or sitting down, as described in the above referenced paragraph from Amir. Thus the incorporation of fall detection into the sensor of Gillian would be obvious because it would increase the range of detectable life-threatening emergencies.
Regarding claim 9, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the sensor according to claim 1. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein the sensor is a radar sensor configured to observe the elevation, azimuth, movement and/or distance of objects, e.g. with continuous-wave radar technique, such as a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) (para. 0041, “The one-dimensional shape enables the radar system 102 to measure one angular dimension (e.g., an azimuth or an elevation) while the two-dimensional shape enables the radar system 102 to measure two angular dimensions (e.g., to determine both an azimuth angle and an elevation angle of the object 302).”).
Regarding claim 11, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 1 are applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 4 are applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 5 are applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 6 are applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 7 are applied.
Regarding claim 18, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 8 are applied.
Regarding claim 19, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 9 are applied.
Regarding claim 20, Gillian in view of Amir discloses the sensor according to claim 1. Gillian as previously combined with Amir further discloses,
A system for observing the presence, location, movement and/or attitude of one or more objects in a monitored area (para. 0030, “In the environments 100-1 to 100-4 and 100-6, a user performs different types of gestures, which are detected by the radar system 102.”), wherein the system comprises at least one sensor according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above), wherein the sensor or sensors are fitted in the monitored area (para. 0036, “The radar system 102 can be used as a stand-alone radar system or used with, or embedded within, many different smart devices 104 or peripherals, such as in control panels that control home appliances and systems, in automobiles to control internal functions (e.g., volume, cruise control, or even driving of the car), or as an attachment to a laptop computer to control computing applications on the laptop.” The examiner notes that being embedded within control panels or automobiles constitutes being fitted into the monitored area).
Regarding claim 23, Gillian as modified by Amir teaches the system of claim 20. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein the system is further adapted to send a notification…if a person is interpreted as having fallen and/or if the vital functions of the monitored person, such as tracked heartbeat and/or breathing of the monitored person, is not within the predefined limits (para. 0033, “If the radar system 102 determines that the driver is falling asleep, for instance, the radar system 102 can cause the smart device 104 to alert the user. Alternatively, if the radar system 102 detects a life-threatening emergency, such as a heart attack, the radar system 102 can cause the smart device 104 to alert a medical professional or emergency services.”).
Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not teach sending a notification of a fall. That is, Gillian teaches sending an emergency alert but does not explicitly state that said alert is a fall alert.
Amir teaches,
…wherein the system is further adapted to send a notification of a fall if a person is interpreted as having fallen and/or if the vital functions of the monitored person, such as tracked heartbeat and/or breathing of the monitored person, is not within the predefined limits (para. 0127, “If the CPU 202 classifies the second status of the person detected in the environment as being in a fall position at step S520 (determined at step S522), at step S524 the CPU 202 issues a fall detection alert or notification.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic notification of Gillian with the fall-specific notification of Amir because including information as to the condition of a patient to a medical professional or emergency services improves the ability of the responder to make appropriate judgements as to how best to aid the patient, because the responder can determine what support the patient may need prior to arriving at the patient’s location.
Regarding claim 24, Gillian as modified by Amir teaches the system according to claim 20. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein the notification and/or fall notification is the sending of an alarm or message to person and/or an organization monitoring the health of the object, e.g. as a message to a phone, as an alarm and/or e.g. to a nurse, to relatives or to an emergency center (para. 0033, “Alternatively, if the radar system 102 detects a life-threatening emergency, such as a heart attack, the radar system 102 can cause the smart device 104 to alert a medical professional or emergency services.”)”).
Regarding claim 26, Gillian as modified by Amir teaches the system according to claim 20. Gillian further teaches,
…wherein the sensor or the system comprises or is connected to camera-based identification means, for example a surveillance camera, and the sensor or the system is configured to use the camera- based identification means in identifying a person (para. 0065, “Additionally or alternatively, a real-time training procedure can use available sensors within the smart device 104 to generate truth data for training the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222. In this case, a training procedure can be initiated by a user of the smart device 104. While the user moves around the smart device 104 and/or moves the smart device 104, data from one or more sensor (e.g., …a camera…) of the smart device 104 and the complex radar data 246 generated by the radar system 102 are collected and provided to the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222. The frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222 determines or adjusts machine-learning parameters to minimize errors between the estimated frame-of-reference data 248 and the truth data provided by the sensor. Using the real-time training procedure, the frame-of-reference machine-learned module 222 can be tailored to the user, account for current environmental conditions, and account for a current position or orientation of the smart device 104.”).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir and further in view of Coke et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0108740 A1), hereinafter Coke.
Regarding claim 3, Gillian in view of amir discloses the sensor according to claim 2. Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not disclose,
…wherein the sensor is configured to essentially continuously use the first operating mode or only to use the first operating mode when the second operating mode is deactivated
Coke discloses,
…wherein the sensor is configured to essentially continuously use the first operating mode or only to use the first operating mode when the second operating mode is deactivated (para. 0080, “After the step 932, processing proceeds to a step 935, where the system and the tracking device(s) continuously monitor the room or other facility.”).
Gillian and Coke are both analogous to the claimed invention because they disclose radar-based area monitoring devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the area monitoring device of Gillian with the continuous use of Coke because the continuous use of Coke would allow the area monitoring device of Gillian to be used in nursing home and hospital settings where patients need to be constantly monitored for safety.
Regarding claim 13, the same citations and reasoning as corresponding system claim 3 are applied.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir and further in view of Sing et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0029879 ), hereinafter Sing.
Regarding claim 10, Gillian in view of Amir teaches a sensor according to claim 1. Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not disclose,
…wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed so that the measurement area of the sensor covers at least part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed, and the sensor is arranged to measure a person on the bed
Sing teaches,
…wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed (fig. 1, sensor 12 arranged above patient-support apparatus 20, noting that fig. 1 depicts patient-support apparatus 20 as a hospital bed) so that the measurement area of the sensor covers at least part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed (fig. 1, field of view 14 includes the entirety of the bed and person lying on the bed), and the sensor is arranged to measure a person on the bed (para. 0006, “According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a monitoring system for monitoring a patient in a patient-support apparatus comprises a detector, a standard, and a controller. The detector is operable to detect electromagnetic radiation within a detection field…The electromagnetic radiation in the field is compared to the signature of the standard to determine if changes in the electromagnetic radiation are indicative of movement of a person in the detection field.” The Examiner notes that fig. 1 shows depicts the patient-support apparatus as a hospital bed).
Sing is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses an electromagnetic wave-based system for area monitoring. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor of Gillian in the arrangement of Sing because arranging a smart device in place allows for it to be placed in an ideal place for monitoring vital signs in areas of interest.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Mende (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0286072 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Gillian as modified by Amir teaches the system according to claim 20. Gillian as previously combined with Amir does not teach,
…wherein the system comprises at least two sensors and the system is configured to detect and measure the persons in the monitored area based on the measurement signal of at least two sensors, which sensors can monitor the same area and/or different part of the monitored area
Amir teaches a sensor with two different fields of view depending on the mode being used (fig. 1, sensors 204 and 206 have overlapping but not identical fields of view), but does not teach a system with at least two sensor devices.
Mende teaches,
…wherein the system comprises at least two sensors and the system is configured to detect and measure the persons in the monitored area based on the measurement signal of at least two sensors, which sensors can monitor the same area and/or different part of the monitored area (para. 0007, “…the system comprises a first radar sensor, which has a first detection region, for detecting road users on a first traffic route; a second radar sensor, which has a second detection region, for detecting road users on a second traffic route, wherein the first detection region and the second detection region overlap in at least one overlapping region”).
Mende is analogous to the claimed invention because it teaches radar devices used for monitoring a particular area. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gillian as modified by Amir to include more than one sensor to monitor the same space because doing so allows for more reliable tracking of people of interest since multiple sets of data can be combined (see Mende, para. 0014).
Regarding claim 22, Gillian as previously modified by Amir and Mende teaches the system of claim 21. Gillian as previously modified by Amir and Mende does not teach,
…wherein the transmissions of the sensors are synchronized and are carried out in interleaved manner in such a way that the sensors are able to observe the same person and/or the same room.
Amir also does not teach,
…wherein the transmissions of the sensors are synchronized and are carried out in interleaved manner in such a way that the sensors are able to observe the same person and/or the same room.
Mende teaches,
…wherein the transmissions of the sensors are synchronized and are carried out in interleaved manner in such a way that the sensors are able to observe the same person and/or the same room (para. 0030, “Preferably, the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor are synchronised in terms of time, wherein measurements are preferably carried out simultaneously, alternately or offset in time. In this way, interference can be avoided and, in addition, the data from the two sensors can be efficiently brought together in the electronic data processing device.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interleaved, synchronized sensor transmissions of Mende in the system of Gillian in view of Amir and Mende because using more than one sensor can cause interference between signals, impacting the reliability of the sensor data. Mende’s synchronized, interleaved transmissions prevent interference, thus allowing sensor data to be efficiently combined with minimal processing power (see Mende, para. 0030).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Silverstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0328997 A1), hereinafter Silverstein.
Regarding claim 25, Gillian in view of Amir teaches the system of claim 20. Gillian as previously modified by Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor or the system comprises or is connected to radio-based identification means, for example Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) or Zigbee based means, and the sensor or system is configured to use the radio-based identification means to identify and/or locate a person or a device carried by the person or assist in identifying and/or locating the person.
Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor or the system comprises or is connected to radio-based identification means, for example Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) or Zigbee based means, and the sensor or system is configured to use the radio-based identification means to identify and/or locate a person or a device carried by the person or assist in identifying and/or locating the person.
Silverstein teaches,
…wherein the sensor or the system comprises or is connected to radio-based identification means, for example Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) or Zigbee based means, and the sensor or system is configured to use the radio-based identification means to identify and/or locate a person or a device carried by the person or assist in identifying and/or locating the person (para. 0061, “In some implementations, the smart home environment 100 includes radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers (e.g., in each room 152 or a portion thereof) that determine occupancy based on RFID tags located on or embedded in occupants.”).
Silverstein is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses using radar for area monitoring. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor system of Gillian in view of Amir with the RFID readers of Silverstein because adding RFID readers allows devices to communicate with one another or a central node, thus making it easier for a radar device to identify movement that isn’t relevant to its monitoring, such as the movement of pets.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Sing.
Regarding claim 27, Gillian as modified by Amir teaches the system of claim 20. Gillian as previously modified by Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed so that the measurement area of the sensor covers at least part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed, and the sensor is arranged to measure a person on the bed.
Amir teaches,
…the measurement area of the sensor covers at least part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed, and the sensor is arranged to measure a person on the bed (para. 0084, “If the height metric is greater than a first threshold distance from the floor but less than a second threshold distance from the floor for example the a maximum height amongst the measurements associated with body is between 30 cm and 1.3 m, the CPU 202 may be able to detect that the person is in a safe reclined position e.g. lying down on a bed or couch, which is an example of a non-fall position.”).
Amir does not teach,
…wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor of Gillian to monitor a person on a bed because Gillian teaches using its sensor device to measure vital signs and send emergency alerts as needed. Most people spend approximately eight hours a day in bed. Thus, having a vital signs sensor with a bed in its frame of reference, as in Amir, allows for monitoring of vital signs for approximately one third of each day without requiring the sensor to re-measure its frame of reference, thus allowing the sensor to detect medical emergencies with less necessary processing power.
Sing teaches,
…wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed (fig. 1, sensor 12 arranged above patient-support apparatus 20, noting that fig. 1 depicts patient-support apparatus 20 as a hospital bed) so that the measurement area of the sensor covers at least part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed (fig. 1, field of view 14 includes the entirety of the bed and person lying on the bed), and the sensor is arranged to measure a person on the bed (para. 0006, “According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a monitoring system for monitoring a patient in a patient-support apparatus comprises a detector, a standard, and a controller. The detector is operable to detect electromagnetic radiation within a detection field…The electromagnetic radiation in the field is compared to the signature of the standard to determine if changes in the electromagnetic radiation are indicative of movement of a person in the detection field.” The Examiner notes that fig. 1 shows depicts the patient-support apparatus as a hospital bed).
Sing is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses an electromagnetic wave-based system for area monitoring. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sensor of Gillian in the arrangement of Sing because arranging a smart device in place allows for it to be placed in an ideal place for monitoring vital signs in areas of interest.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillian in view of Amir further in view of Sing as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Coke.
Regarding claim 28, Gillian in view of Amir further in view of Sing teaches the invention of claim 27. Neither Gillian nor Amir nor Sing teaches,
…wherein the system comprises at least one additional sensor, which is arranged to a room in which beds are monitored with sensors and the measurement area of the additional sensor or additional sensors is arranged such that it covers essentially the whole room and/or the additional sensor or sensors are arranged to measure and/or sense persons at least outside bed areas
Coke teaches,
…wherein the system comprises at least one additional sensor, which is arranged to a room in which beds are monitored with sensors and the measurement area of the additional sensor or additional sensors is arranged such that it covers essentially the whole room and/or the additional sensor or sensors are arranged to measure and/or sense persons at least outside bed areas (para. 0080, “After the step 932, processing proceeds to a step 935, where the system and the tracking device(s) continuously monitor the room or other facility.” The examiner notes that the room of the referenced PGPub includes areas outside the bed).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the technique of using multiple sensors to monitor parts of the room not monitored by the first sensor of Coke and use it with the sensors of Gillian in view of Amir further in view of Sing because using multiple sensors allows for a person to be tracked over a larger space, thus making it more likely that medical emergencies will be detected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648